DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 03/20/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 12-13, and 15-17 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 6-8, and 10 of copending Application No. 18/598761 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for the following reasons:
Regarding Claim 1:
Reference (18/598761) Claim 1
Instant Application (18/610629) Claim 1
An optical detection device comprising:
An optical detection device comprising:
a first photoelectric conversion element configured to output a first output when the first photoelectric conversion element is irradiated with a light pulse;
a first photoelectric conversion element configured to output a first output when the first photoelectric conversion element is irradiated with a light pulse;
and a second photoelectric conversion element configured to output a second output when the second photoelectric conversion element is irradiated with the light pulse, wherein the optical detection device is configured to combine a first signal caused by the first output with a second signal caused by the second output when the first photoelectric conversion element and the second photoelectric conversion element are irradiated with the same light pulse, in a state where a first condition and a second condition are satisfied,
and a second photoelectric conversion element configured to output a second output when the second photoelectric conversion element is irradiated with the light pulse, wherein the optical detection device is configured to combine a first signal caused by the first output and a second signal caused by the second output when the first photoelectric conversion element and the second photoelectric conversion element are irradiated with the same light pulse with each other, in a state where a first condition and a second condition are satisfied,
the first condition is a condition that an absolute value of an amount of change until the first signal reaches a peak is different from an absolute value of an amount of change until the second signal reaches a peak,
the first condition is a condition that a time position of a peak of the first signal is different from a time position of a peak of the second signal,
and the second condition is a condition that a sign of the amount of change until the first signal reaches the peak is different from a sign of the amount of change until the second signal reaches the peak.
and the second condition is a condition that a sign of the amount of change until the first signal reaches the peak is different from a sign of the amount of change until the second signal reaches the peak.
As can be seen above, claim 1 of the instant application recites identical features to claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/598761, except that the copending application recites “the first condition is a condition that an absolute value of an amount of change until the first signal reaches a peak is different from an absolute value of an amount of change until the second signal reaches a peak” (hereinafter feature A), whereas the instant application recites “the first condition is a condition that a time position of a peak of the first signal is different from a time position of a peak of the second signal” (hereinafter feature B). However, the technical limitations of feature B are fully encompassed by the technical limitations of feature A (i.e. feature B is a broader limitation which is fully encompassed by feature A; “a time position of a peak of the first signal” being encompassed by “an absolute value of an amount of change until the first signal reaches a peak”). As such, claim 1 of the instant application is anticipated by claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/598761
Regarding Claims 2 and 4-7, claims 2 and 4-7 of the instant application recite features which are anticipated by the features of claims 2, 6-8, and 10 of copending Application No. 18/598761, and are therefore not patentably distinct from claims 2, 6-8, and 10 of copending Application No. 18/598761 for the same reason(s) as stated above.
Regarding Claims 12-13 and 15, claims 12-13 and 15 of the instant application are drawn to an optical detection device similar to that which is recited in claims 1-2 and 7, but with a broader subset of features. As such, claims 12-13 and 15 of the instant application are anticipated by claims 1-2 and 10 of copending Application No. 18/598761 for the same reason(s) as stated above.
Regarding Claims 16 and 17, claims 16 and 17 of the instant application are drawn to the method of using an apparatus the same as claimed in claims 1 and 12, respectively. As such, claims 16 and 17 of the instant application are anticipated by claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/598761 for the same reason(s) as stated above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 8-11, and 14 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Dietze et al. US 2022/0228909 A1; Yamane et al. US 2022/0416096 A1; Bunandar et al. US 10763974 B2.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID W LAMBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-7692. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 10-6.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kenneth Vanderpuye can be reached at (571)272-3078. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAVID W LAMBERT/Examiner, Art Unit 2634
Prosecution Insights